The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-01-06

jority; but the saloon must remain, though every
man, woman and child within the township,
town or city should protest against it.
The Legislature is simply asked to provide
that each town and township may determine for
itself whether or not it will have saloons, and if
it decides to have them, upon what terms. 1t is
asked to provide that one shall establish a
saloon in a neighborhood where the people to be
affected by it do not want it. To this measure
the Republican party is unreservedly pledged,
While the Democratic party IS pledged to the
principle that the will of the saloon keeper
ought 20 be supreme and indsputable. If he
wants to start a saloon in neighborhood to de-
bauch and corrupt its youth. to devour its sub
stance and bring nakedness and hunger to its
women and children, that party says he shall
have the power to do it, and that neither the
protests of helpless innocence nor the votes OF
free men shall avail to prevent it. The fact that
men dare to open their mouths in public IN de-
Tense of so nonstrous proposition is a reproach
TO the manhood of our people
Is this not submitting most important ques
ton OF local interest to one man. and he, il every
sense of the word, an enemy to those over
whom he is installed as autocrat2 The more he
corrupts the morals of the people, the more his
business will prosper. The longer he keep
the people in ignorance, the longer will his sa-
loon flourish. The more the people neglect
their own material interests, the more they will
be likely to build up his. Is such man, under
such circumstances, fit to be the ruler of free
people. The Democratic party of Indiana says
be their master, no matter how much, nor in
what form, they may protest against it. The
whisky sellers one vote for the saloon is to
outweigh all votes against it, no matter how
many such there may be- Is this free govern
ment. or the most odious OF all oligarchiess Is
it free men who propose such a thing. or the
base and cringing slaves of the whisky ringl
If it shall be asked, why not let the township
and town decide upon the propriety Of allowing
other kinds of business within their limits,
answer that from time immemorial the traffic in
Intoxicating liquors has been treated as a wrong,
to be regulated and restrained by law. 1t has
never been considered q business that ought, in
any way. to be encouraged, but discouraged
The courts, from the DAYS of Blackstone have
drawn q broad line of demarcation between the
whisky traffic and other kinds of business They
have never put the whisky shop and the butcher
shop in the same category in law. The latter
has been regarded as an essential-the former as
a nuisance. Our own Supreme Court has drawn
a wide mark OF distinction between the saloon
business and other occupations. The of
Harrison and others vs. Lockhart Us Ind. Re-
ports. page 112,) presented novel question.
Lockhart executed to Harrison and other citizens
of Martinsville bond by which he obligated
himself that he would not, at any time, nor in
any manner whatever, engage in the retail
whisky traffic in said town, under penalty Of
$500. He violated this obligation, and
suit was brought to recover the penalty
The lower court, following the general doctrine
that bond in restraint of trade is void as being
bond constituted cause Of action, and gave
judgment against the plaintiffs for costs. An
appeal was taken to the Supreme Court, where
the whole subject was deliberately examined,
and an exhaustive and learned opinion written
The policy of the State, in its dealings with the
liquor traffic, from the Territorial Legislature
UP 20 the time of the decision, was critically re-
viewed and after citing all the various laws that
had been enacted for the restraint of the traffic,
the court says:
It will be SEEM from this rapid view that it has not
been the policy either in England or in this country
to encourage the traffic in Intoxicating liquors. but
that in this country, the whole action of the egsla
tive power has been uniformly to limit restrict, alb
soutely prohibit the traffic. With u.s. from the time
emit moment that policy has been pursued, and in the
opinion of former judges of this court the utmost
verge of legislative passed in the vain at
tempt to prohibit the SALE In the light of such
record and with the legislative enactment still stand
ing unrepeaied and its power unquestioned in this
court would it become us to declare that it was
the settled policy of this State to encourage the traffic
in Intoxicating liquor and to protect it, that it might
add to the wealth of the State, the
legislation upon the liquor traffic has BEEN
courage persons to embark in the business. but to
hedge it about with restrictions and qualifications and
overshadowed it with pains and penalties. The
whole of legislation this subject prevents
any presumption being indulged that this traffic, like
other empoyments adds to the wealth Of the nation,
or to tho convenience of the public.
The judgment of the Circuit Court was re-
versed and the remanded for further pro-
ceeding in the lower court.
The law, as laid down in this case, has since
been twice followed and approved by our Su-
preme Court (See McAllister VS.. Howells AZ
Ind. R., p. 15 and Heddrick VS.. State, 10I Ind
R., p. 564
1t is thus settled law in Indiana that, while
one may not bind himself not to follow a useful
and legitimate occupation, where one else
takes his place, he may bind himself not to
| follow the business of liquor selling because
such occupation is detrimental to the public
| veal, has always been regarded and treated by
| the Legislature as evil to be restrained, and
| does not come within the reason of the rule
| which renders void contract or bond in re-
straint of trade. In other words, the court
| holds that, while a man may not bind himself to
| quit doing what is right and useful, he may bind
| himself to quit doing what is wrong and in
| furious, and the liquor traffic being a
wrong, the bond by which the seller obligated
| himself to quit selling, could be enforced in a
| court of justice. On the same principle the
LEGISLATURE may authorize the people to vote
| out of their midst what is detrimental TO the
public welfare, but not an occupation that is
useful and beneficial The Legislature may au
thorize one to kill his neighbours mad dog but
not his sheep. The Democratic party proposes
an entire reversal of this policy. 1t argues that
while the Legislature may authorize the people
Of given localities to vote down the school
| house, the alms-house and the railroad, i
| should not authorize them to vote down tn,
| erog shop. They may vote out what is useful
| but not what is detrimental to the community
They may be authorized to vote out what il
| right but not what is wrong. P. S. KENNEDY.
| CRAwFoRDsvILLE, Ind.
Meeting of Window-Glass Manufacturers.